GuySuCo

Jul 18, 2010 Editorial

The contradictions undergirding GuySuCo’s disappointing performance over the last five years were quite visible at the corporation’s recent “Honour Roll” ceremony to felicitate meritorious workers for the past year. Representing one position were the representatives of the government, the board and the management and another, diametrically opposed one, was the head of the major sugar union, GAWU.

The first group stressed the demands of the industry if it is to survive: Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud said, “We need more canes in our factories. We need more sugar for export. We need to cut the cost of production. We have to eradicate corruption and wastage”. Chairman of the Board, Dr Nanda Gopaul was convinced that the current Board and management were fully competent and capable of bringing the desired changes to make the industry profitable. He charged workers to put their shoulder to the wheel. Newly appointed CEO Mr Paul Bhim exhorted other workers to emulate the performance of the champion workers.

In contradistinction, GAWU’s head, Komal Chand, placed the blame for GuySuCo’s abysmal production squarely at the feet of management – and by implication, those in charge of the corporation. Rejecting proffered reasons such as the fall of the Euro (in which the bulk of sales is denominated), and the weather (El Nino) he pointed to the “extravagance” of management and brusquely declared, “We need to stop with excuses and get the work done.”

Chand found it unbelievable with eight factories and sufficient lands, that GuySuCo cannot produce more. It has workers and has the resources.

Chand has a point. According to him, the average production for the past five years has been 240,000 tons annually. This is almost 100,000 tons less that had been routinely achieved in the sixties – even without the services of the new modern Skeldon Factory. Initially set within the turnaround plan at 300,000 tons for this year, it was quickly revised downwards in light of adverse weather conditions. But for the first crop even the revised figure of 91,000 tons (from 130,000 tons) fell short by 10,000 tons. It is hard to disagree with Mr Chand that there is something fundamentally wrong with GuySuCo. Is it simply a management problem as he proposes?

Those in charge appear to agree. At the beginning of last year, Booker Tate, the expatriate firm that had managed the industry since the beginning of the nineties, was abruptly terminated. Dissatisfaction with its implementation of the Skeldon Modernisation project might have been the proximate cause of the parting of the ways but many had long concluded that the services rendered by Booker Tate was not commensurate with the huge fees charged.

To succeed Booker Tate, not only new managers were appointed but a new management structure was instituted in parallel with the turnaround blueprint. Last month, some of the innovations in this latter structure were scrapped. We can only conclude that the expected results of the changes were not manifested.

We must credit the administration with its proactive approach towards reviving GuySuCo but we must caution that it is now very obvious that individuals very knowledgeable of the industry must be brought on board at the highest levels. Some months ago, Dr Roger Luncheon had revealed that there was an open for the union to be represented on the Board. Has GAWU taken up this offer so that it does not only have to snipe from the outside?

Secondly, there was a quite pointed suggestion made by Mr Beni Sankar, one who has a long association with agriculture: “Observation is telling me that the Board is top heavy with financial personnel. The members of a Board are supposed to set and monitor policies to ensure the effective performance of an organisation.

But how can one set policies when they are ignorant of what an organisation does? GuySuCo’s main operations are growing cane, converting it into sugar and marketing. Very technical indeed! I am sure that many directors cannot appreciate what this is all about, so everything is left to management which can be hazardous.” Is this the way to go?